Critterhunter
New member
This debate spawned out of this thread...
http://www.findmall.com/read.php?21,1856942,1856942#msg-1856942
Along with prior debates that always seem to pop up about Minelabs on gold rings versus machines with *fine gold* sensitivity. Big difference between the two. Fine gold sensitivity doesn't necessarily mean that even the thinnest of gold rings won't bang super deep on a Minelab. Fine gold sensitivity to me means thin gold chains and tiny earrings and such. Many believe that since Minelabs aren't sensitivity to fine gold, that that means they won't get near the depth on low conductors such as thin gold rings as they do on copper or silver coins. More later on that...
I had already done a pictorial video prior to this discussion in the above thread link, not really specifically for the purpose of testing a gold ring versus a high conductor such as the clad dime used, and had found and noted in the video description below it the differences of depths of the gold ring versus a clad dime just doing some basic air depth testing using the same exact settings and coil on both targets. That video where the depth contrast was noted in and/or below it in the description was done on this gold ring right here...
[attachment 259923 goldringdepthtestpic.jpg]
And the pictorial video judging it's depth, in both pin point and disc and low vs high volume of each in contrast for the purpose of that video can be found here...
http://youtu.be/G817__EOC8A
And now I've just done a further test on video, comparing that of a foil top off of some drinks including sports drinks, which can be rather common at some places such as sports fields. I contrasted the depth of that foil drink top to a clad dime, just like I had done of the gold ring and clad dime in the above prior link listed, to explore this low/high conductor debate further. I had already known the conclusions of what to expect based on what I've seen in the field, but just the same a picture is worth a thousand words, or perhaps 10,000 words in my case.
The foil drink top can be seen in this pic right here below...
[attachment 259921 SportsDrinkCaps001_zpsba03d727.jpg]
And of some of the kinds of drinks they come off of, here's a picture of one type...
[attachment 259922 gatoraidsportsdrinkwithfoiltop.jpg]
And here's this latest pictorial testing one of those sport drink tops, giving a VDI # of 86 or 87, which is very low in the foil range...
http://youtu.be/PrnsIGqY7P0
As a side note, the lowest VDI we scanned of over 100 truly random non-biased gold rings was 75, so by raising discrimination just high enough to kill those drink tops you can avoid a ton of very low conductors and foil junk while only sacrificing a few potential gold rings at some land based sites. Further links to threads and discussions on all these random, non-biased by digging certain zones, gold rings we scanned in our test pool, along with using the notch to avoid a billion tabs in the right situations, can be found in the description below the video.
But primarily the pictorial video above was just to further test the low/high conductor debate on Minelabs. Yep, Minelabs aren't good on fine gold like thin chains or tiny earrings, but when it comes to even the thinnest and plainest of gold rings, due to them being an intact loop which presents a strong image to the detection field just like a solid coin will, that is the key right there as to the BBS units hitting super deep on gold rings and other low or mid range conductors, just like they do on old coins.
If there was a inherent flaw of Minelabs not hitting on low or mid range conductors well, based only on conductive properties, we should very well see it in the above video test, as that foil top is just about as low in a conductive metal as it gets. Multifrequency of BBS isn't just about penetrating various minerals soils or sands better, but also for lighting up a wide span of conductive target ranges better that a single high or low frequency might be make a trade off on.
The key is the shape and how that reacts with fighting the flow of the eddy currents in the detection field, not how low the conductive nature of the metal in the target is. Even the thinnest and plainest of gold rings will bang super deep on a BBS unit. That's what I'm after when gold hunting- rings. By my way of thinking those are the most common gold items to be found on land, at the beach, or in the water.
Only when I'm beach hunting when the mood strikes me on certain days would I want a unit with very fine gold sensitivity to thin chains or earrings, after I've cleaned the spot of any deep rings lurking about. On land though, I've owned machines with such fine gold abilities, and for my tastes they made for a rather bumpy ride, banging hard and having me chasing fine foil flakes and such that sounded good. In that case I want them to sound sick or be ignored so I can look for more "substantial" hits, when I'm after either old coins or gold rings.
http://www.findmall.com/read.php?21,1856942,1856942#msg-1856942
Along with prior debates that always seem to pop up about Minelabs on gold rings versus machines with *fine gold* sensitivity. Big difference between the two. Fine gold sensitivity doesn't necessarily mean that even the thinnest of gold rings won't bang super deep on a Minelab. Fine gold sensitivity to me means thin gold chains and tiny earrings and such. Many believe that since Minelabs aren't sensitivity to fine gold, that that means they won't get near the depth on low conductors such as thin gold rings as they do on copper or silver coins. More later on that...
I had already done a pictorial video prior to this discussion in the above thread link, not really specifically for the purpose of testing a gold ring versus a high conductor such as the clad dime used, and had found and noted in the video description below it the differences of depths of the gold ring versus a clad dime just doing some basic air depth testing using the same exact settings and coil on both targets. That video where the depth contrast was noted in and/or below it in the description was done on this gold ring right here...
[attachment 259923 goldringdepthtestpic.jpg]
And the pictorial video judging it's depth, in both pin point and disc and low vs high volume of each in contrast for the purpose of that video can be found here...
http://youtu.be/G817__EOC8A
And now I've just done a further test on video, comparing that of a foil top off of some drinks including sports drinks, which can be rather common at some places such as sports fields. I contrasted the depth of that foil drink top to a clad dime, just like I had done of the gold ring and clad dime in the above prior link listed, to explore this low/high conductor debate further. I had already known the conclusions of what to expect based on what I've seen in the field, but just the same a picture is worth a thousand words, or perhaps 10,000 words in my case.
The foil drink top can be seen in this pic right here below...[attachment 259921 SportsDrinkCaps001_zpsba03d727.jpg]
And of some of the kinds of drinks they come off of, here's a picture of one type...
[attachment 259922 gatoraidsportsdrinkwithfoiltop.jpg]
And here's this latest pictorial testing one of those sport drink tops, giving a VDI # of 86 or 87, which is very low in the foil range...
http://youtu.be/PrnsIGqY7P0
As a side note, the lowest VDI we scanned of over 100 truly random non-biased gold rings was 75, so by raising discrimination just high enough to kill those drink tops you can avoid a ton of very low conductors and foil junk while only sacrificing a few potential gold rings at some land based sites. Further links to threads and discussions on all these random, non-biased by digging certain zones, gold rings we scanned in our test pool, along with using the notch to avoid a billion tabs in the right situations, can be found in the description below the video.
But primarily the pictorial video above was just to further test the low/high conductor debate on Minelabs. Yep, Minelabs aren't good on fine gold like thin chains or tiny earrings, but when it comes to even the thinnest and plainest of gold rings, due to them being an intact loop which presents a strong image to the detection field just like a solid coin will, that is the key right there as to the BBS units hitting super deep on gold rings and other low or mid range conductors, just like they do on old coins.
If there was a inherent flaw of Minelabs not hitting on low or mid range conductors well, based only on conductive properties, we should very well see it in the above video test, as that foil top is just about as low in a conductive metal as it gets. Multifrequency of BBS isn't just about penetrating various minerals soils or sands better, but also for lighting up a wide span of conductive target ranges better that a single high or low frequency might be make a trade off on.
The key is the shape and how that reacts with fighting the flow of the eddy currents in the detection field, not how low the conductive nature of the metal in the target is. Even the thinnest and plainest of gold rings will bang super deep on a BBS unit. That's what I'm after when gold hunting- rings. By my way of thinking those are the most common gold items to be found on land, at the beach, or in the water.
Only when I'm beach hunting when the mood strikes me on certain days would I want a unit with very fine gold sensitivity to thin chains or earrings, after I've cleaned the spot of any deep rings lurking about. On land though, I've owned machines with such fine gold abilities, and for my tastes they made for a rather bumpy ride, banging hard and having me chasing fine foil flakes and such that sounded good. In that case I want them to sound sick or be ignored so I can look for more "substantial" hits, when I'm after either old coins or gold rings.